AAII Survey: Only a Fraction of Retail Investors Are Worried About Social Security System’s Viability

Social Security is the proverbial third-rail of politics: it is an issue that evokes such passions that it is considered untouchable.

Unfortunately, that mentality, among several factors, has put the Social Security system in a potentially precarious situation. As the Baby Boomer generation enters their retirement years, the ratio of workers paying into Social Security and those collecting Social Security benefits has fallen precipitously. According to data from the Social Security Administration, in 1940 the ratio of covered workers to Social Security beneficiaries was 159.4. By 1960 that ratio had fallen to 5.1. Throughout the 1990s and much of the 2000s, the ratio hovered between 3.3 and 3.4 before falling below 3.0 in 2010. Some project the ratio to fall to 2.3 by 2030.

Based on the Social Security Administration’s 2015 report, the trust is on track to be depleted in 2034, at which point the system will be able to pay 79% of benefits from ongoing tax revenue. That projection is expected to shrink to 73% by 2089. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the shortfall could come as early as 2025.

So although there are some shrill warnings about Social Security, it is going to be around for quite some time. In addition, as long as people are paying taxes, it seems that Social Security will continue paying some level of benefits.

AAII Weekly Survey Question

To see how worried our readers are about the long-term solvency of Social Security, we asked our members last week:

How concerned are you about the viability of the Social Security system?

In addition, we added an additional dimension, asking respondents how old they are.

Here are the results:

In all, 2,493 participated.

Since our readers tend to skew older, it is not surprising that the vast majority of respondents are over the age of 50 (97.6%).

Interestingly, when looking at the four age groups, worry about the viability of the Social Security system falls as people age. Perhaps that is because they are closer to collecting their benefits, or already are, or they are in a better position financially such that they will not have to rely on Social Security in retirement.

Nearly 55% of those aged 18–29 worry a great deal about the viability of Social Security. This falls to 44.9% for those aged 30–49; 23.3% for those in the 50–64 age group; and only 18.7% for those 65 and older.

That’s not to say that individuals don’t have some level of worry about the long-term viability of Social Security. For those age 30–49, only 10.2% are not worried at all about the viability of Social Security. Nearly 7% of those in the 50–64 age group are not worried at all, while 11.7% of those 65 and older have no worries about the viability of the Social Security system.

Weekly Special Question

Last week’s special question looked for potential solutions to Social Security insolvency. So we asked our readers:

If you were commissioner of the Social Security Administration, what steps would you take to improve Social Security’s solvency and long-term sustainability?

Given the level of interest in this topic, it’s not surprising that we received 871 suggestions regarding how to “fix” Social Security.

The single most-suggested solution for improving the solvency and long-term sustainability of Social Security was increasing the retirement age at 24.9%.

Roughly one-fifth of respondents said that there should be a means-test for Social Security as well as better policing of those receiving benefits.

The third-most-popular suggestion for boosting Social Security’s sustainability was to tax all income for Social Security, thereby removing the current cap at 15.2%.

Nearly 8% of readers feel that having a true “Social Security lockbox” will ensure its solvency. As such, they believe that Social Security funds should not be used for anything except paying out benefits.

Rounding out the top five responses, almost 5% of readers suggested investing Social Security funds in the stock market or other instruments besides solely investing in U.S. Treasuries.

Here is a sampling of the responses readers offered regarding the advantages and disadvantages of trading on margin:

“Incentivize delaying signing up until after the age of 70.”

“Lift the annual cap on payroll taxes paid into the Social Security system so that all earned wages would be taxed.”

“Raise the age to collect benefits.”

“Scrutinize the disability payments to reduce/eliminate fraud.”

“Abolish social security for those under 40 and set up individual retirement accounts which people are required to fund with an equivalent amount to their FICA payroll deduction and which employers can contribute instead of paying into the government fund. Provide a transition plan to migrate those 40 and over to individual retirement accounts.”

“Allow more immigration in order to sustain the Social Security system.”

“If I was in charge of Social Security I would tell people that payments should only cover their bare living expenses. Social Security should not cover a person’s full retirement.”

“This is not a problem the Social Security can solve. The problem must be solved by Congress. Congress must stop spending the excess Social Security contributions. They currently use social security taxes to fund the general government expenditures, rather than investing the funds for future social security benefits.”

Everybody has an opinion! Why not give us yours? Participate in our weekly member poll, updated every Monday, and see the results online at www.aaii.com/memberquestion.

Related

Wayne A. Thorp, CFA, is the senior financial analyst and a vice president at AAII. He has written extensively on the topics of technical analysis, quantitative stock selection, stock valuation and analysis, and technology. He is the program manager for Stock Investor Pro, AAII's fundamental stock screening and research database programs. Wayne is also the lead analyst and product manager for AAII's Stock Superstars newsletter and serves on the investment committee of the Dividend Investing newsletter. He has worked at AAII since 1997.

3 Replies to “AAII Survey: Only a Fraction of Retail Investors Are Worried About Social Security System’s Viability”

Your survey results are very interesting. Over 67% in every category of respondent are in the 65+ group. Does this mean that the rest of us are not paying attention. The history of the SSA and Congress has been to grandfather those already in the system. If I’m right, and if the system becomes insolvent in 2025, those who should be most concerned should be those in the age group 50-64. Those are the people most likely to have benefits reduced or removed, just as or before they are about to retire. In stead, those in the age group 65+, meaning those who potentially are already receiving SSA benefits are obviously more interested in SSA benefits. As an example, I plan to retire in 2026. Should I be worried that benefits will be changed the year before my plan plays out? Duh. Which, of course, is one reason why I’m a member of AAII.

I am not worried about my benefits as such but I am worried about those for my kids, grandkids and great grandkids. I can agree with many of the suggestions from others. There is only one way to keep the greedy politicians out of the system and that is to make it a stock market system that is NOT managed by the government and is based on the Total Stock Market not some get rich scheme based on the latest investing fad. Also the managers of the system must have EXCESSIVE scrutiny on short time frame to keep them at least semi-honest.

I would really like to see comments from those aged 18-49. Although they might be a minority within AAII membership, I did expect to see a greater level of concern. Perhaps these folks have zero faith in the system and will totally rely on their own investments. As a business owner with young employees, that is not the behavior I am seeing, but my employees are not AAII members and seem to treasure living for the moment.

Congress needs to stop treating Social Security as an “entitlement” program. It is an investment made by workers and employers and in that regard while it is technically a tax we need to stop referring to it as one. “Tax” = Congressional ability to legislate what happens. Investment, where there is a fiduciary responsibility by those administering the system could equate to “touch this money and get subpoenaed because you siphoned the funds without permission”. People should not stand for the rhetoric we hear and lets push for accountability, responsibility and prudent investing and administration. If the system is essentially an annuity, then it should be invested and managed accordingly.